Poll: are you going to call "bloodred" anything else?

Another thought

Another thought I just had referring to all those people who have a problem with the different quality levels of bloodreds (Diffused Normal Corn). A red cornsnake showing the diffuse/episkiastic is a bloodred regardless of the amount of red.

You just have to look within your own body to realize that blood itself comes in many different levels of intensity! Personally, I have bloody noses that are a deep maroon red (probably what most associate with a bloodred cornsnake). I've had cuts when wiped with a kleenex display a very intensely bright red. I've had blood that seemed a little more yellowish/orangish looking, no doubt from excess plasma. I've tracked deer's blood trails that show a nice frothy pink blood. And if my biology teacher was correct, the blood actually running through my veins is more of a blue or dark purplish color, deeper than even the bloodred (diffuse normal corn) 'standard'.

One thing I do know for sure is that my blood has never been gray or white or amethyst or yellow . . .

D80

Taceas,

Here is what I had posted in another thread, wherein I first suggested episkiastic as a new name for the pattern morph:

"Using English letters in place of the Greek ones, the term in question is EPISKIAZO. That is the one that means 'to eclipse, overshadow, etc.' It is pronounced (epi-skee-AH-dzo), and could be used to describe the pattern mutation in a bloodred as being 'episkiastic.' "

The reason I chose that particular Greek term is because, as Rich rightly pointed out, it's not so much that saddle colors fade away on a muturing bloodred or pewter, but that the ground color seems to overwhlem the saddle coloration. Hence, the concept of the pattern being "overshadowed or eclipsed," regardless of the coloration involved (red, bloodred, lavender, yellow, silver or gray).

Darin,

Thanks for copying/pasting that! I was so cross-eyed after reading everything at once I'm sure I missed some things as I eventually started to skim posts. =P

Color vs Pattern, test #2: The "Photoshop" test...

Another test I devised goes like this:
Start with the following image which is composed of a red, green, and blue layer, and is in the shape of a generic "normal corn" pattern, and alter it to make each different trait.



The trick is that every pixel of a given layer must be altered by the same operation. The same rule applies independently to red, green, and blue. You can colorize, saturate, hue shift, brighten/contrast, pull the "RGB" sliders, etc. Thus, you are changing the color but not the pattern. This should separate the color morphs from the pattern morphs, right?

Here's Normal


Amel


Hypo


Anery/Charcoal


Caramel


and Lavender (Ok so I suck with the colors, but you get the idea.)



Now try making a Motley, Striped, Zigzag, Aztec, or "Bloodred/Diffused/Episkiastic" by using the same method.

You can't make a pewter or other "bloodred" morph because making the pattern "disappear" does it as much to the dorsal saddles as it does to the sides, which is not an accurate portrayal of bloods/pewters, etc. If the belly were included in the image, it would also require making the borders white in order to clear off the belly checkers.

It doesn't work because you have to alter the pattern to do it... these are pattern-altering morphs.

That's a good example of the limitations of photoshop. But Don't you think there are some things that just can't be explained because we don't currently have the ability to understand them?
I'll go along with the theory that Bloodred changes the pattern to some degree, but that certainly is no reason to redesignate the name of the mutations involved. Bloodred means something to me, a combination of traits that produce a certain look. Just because it has a color in the name doesn't mean I have to blank out everything because it says red. Do newbies think a snake is really blue when someone tells them it's in the blue? BLUE is BLUE so should we go through the process of relearning a new more accurate name?

Chuck,

Firstly, I assume you have read Dr. Bechtel's book Reptile and Amphibian Variants, so please review the section on Chromatophore Biology, please. Unfortunately this is the peak of breeding season around here, and I have NO time at all to go into depth on this discussion. But I think a review of the relationship between xanthophores and melanophores and their relation to pattern and color may be in order here. What exactly IS pattern? When you can accurately answer that question, maybe my opinion will make better sense.

Secondly, what exactly is the mechanism claimed for the genetic trait called "Diffuse"? How will this mechanism be distinguished from identical or similar effects seem within other unrelated genetic traits other than by saying "from Blood Red stock" as a pertinent identifier? As mentioned before, I see this same basic appearance in several other cultivars, but I certainly would not want to have the same term applied to all of them. How do we distinguish them from one another without referring to the original root stock? If you have to say "from Blood Red Stock", then what does changing the name really accomplish? That is one of the self inflicted arguments I had in dropping the name "Milk Snake Phase".

And although I do admire your efforts with Photoshop, I do not believe we know enough about the actual mechanics of color rendition based on chromatophores to be able to rely on a computer program to be much help with this. I know I tried myself with some experimentation and results were not at all satisfactory. The analog nature of the natural world is unimpressed with our digital skills, it seems.

Wish I had more time to spend on this, but my time is truly better spent doing other things at this time. Heck, I don't even have time to review what I just wrote to see if it made any sense at all!

Alright I don't understand all the genetics of it all but it sure makes for some interesting reading. I am going to bring up Leach and Hasting again. If they are called Leasting you can say to the uniformed who ask, that it is named for those who developed the strain and it does in some ways describe what happens on the belly. It would give us

Carmel Leastings
Butter Leastings
Lavender Leastings

Just one opnion that doesn't count for much but thanks for letting me give it.
Peace
Paul

To DRIZZT80 and all. . .

Re: using Pantherophis guttata.

Noticing that almost none of the commercial sites out there are using this "new" taxon, I decided to do some inquiring. I wish I'd done this sooner to be more timely to your observation that we're not using the "new" scientific names. Rich and I explained that accurate names are essential to responsible and successful marketing. They must be accurate and acceptable. In this case, I decided to ask the expert before changing my web site. I wrote to J.T.Collins. He's the director of CNAH, the Center for North American Herpetology. I asked why their site http://www.cnah.org/nameslist.asp?id=6 was not using the latest taxa. Here is his response.

[[Dear Don:

Although I agree with the change from Elaphe to Pantherophis (and have already used it in print elsewhere), CNAH does not change its online list until 1) such a proposed shift is submitted to our snake systematist group, 2) they agree with it, and 3) we publish it in the next (sixth) print edition (when the next print edition appears, the web site automatically changes to match it).

Personally, I would go ahead and use Pantherophis. Take heart. When they finally split up the last transcontinental snake genus that occurs in the US (Coluber), we get to keep the generic name and the Old World will have to use something else.

Joseph T. Collins
The Wildlife Author Laureate of Kansas
Adjunct Herpetologist, Kansas Biological Survey
Adjunct Curator of Herpetology, Sternberg Museum of Natural History
Emeritus, University of Kansas Natural History Museum
Instructor (Herpetology), Washburn University]]

Hence, it now appears that his organization is in agreement with these changes and I will therefore now change that on my site. For reasons of accuracy and to maintain credibility in the industry, I like to do all my homework before making such important changes.

I just didn't want you to think that some of us are "resisting change" when we don't immediately react to things like taxonomic "shifts". As I indicated before, arbitrary kneejerk reactions to every new thing that comes along can sometimes put us out on a limb by ourselves. There are enough folks out there prematurely naming what they believe to be new morphs that turn out not to be. While I love to be out on that limb when I'm the only one with a new corn morph, I don't relish that position on subjects that are too contraversial or unproven.

Don
www.cornsnake.NET

Hah!

I just realized that I don't even have the latin name for the corn snake on my SerpenCo.com site! Maybe I'll just keep it that way. I think the common name of the species will change a whole lot less times than the latin name.

I'm not resisting change. But I'll be damned if I will go through my entire building and change all those ID labels from "EGG" to "PGG"!

Too funny. . .

Rich, you apparently subconsciencly omitted that little "detail" on your site for what is now clearly a good reason. Heck, they'll probably change it again in a few years anyway. Kudos.

Don and Rich both, thanks for the response to my Pantherophis example. I understand the reality of mechanically changing the names around your businesses. I thank you Don for the email response from CNAH concerning the name change. I want to share that while I wasn't point fingers at anyone specifically, I think it does show a similarity in the resistence to change that people have. I agree with you 100% on the need, no - necessity!, for dialogue when things must change. It has to be done right.

I feel as though the conversations concerning bloodred/diffuse/episkiastic are getting too nit-picky about this and that and the other thing concerning the proposed name changes. There is so much variation within ALL the morphs, that's the fact of nature! (No slight on Rich, but I have an okeetee that I trust is an okeetee, but don't thnk for a minute 'looks' like an okeetee. I have learned, and understand, the variation expected within normal corns which is what an okeetee really is.)

I view this topic as much simpler than everyone makes it. I think we have to agree that there is always variation in every morph. I think we have to agree that the bloodred/diffuse/episkiastic is a gene (combo?) that affects pattern (whether it also uses color is another debate). I think we have to agree that simpler is always better, and being able to explain bloodred, pewter, and butter diffuse would be easier than bloodred, pewter, and butter bloodred (even if it is only by one or two sentences or disclaimers). I think we have to agree that in the end, each specific color mutation should/could have it's own name, ie pewter, bloodred, butter, snow, etc. etc..

Where's that really leave us? I think before a name is agreed upon, there has to be an agreement that it should change. I personally feel that a lot of the arguements posted aren't arguing against a name change, but are arguing against the use of diffuse or episkiastic, et. al. If that's the case, we need to better come together with a name. I have stated several times (as have others), I don't care what is come up with as long as it 'sounds good'. Basically, that's what I hear in the majority of the other arguments in the past threads on this subject.

I just don't agree with the "I've always used bloodred and understands what it means myself so I'm going to continue to use it." argument. I just can't get over the discrepency between saying Snow Bloodred or Anery Bloodred or Lavendar Bloodred. It's just not 'right', and that to me is what makes it a 'simple' discussion. (I still agree with Don in saying the discussion so far has been necessary, but I believe the track of the discussions is off the mark a bit.)

D80

I happen to like the name Bloodred Corns or Blood Corns as they are also referred as. Perhaps it is because I have been calling them that for 20 years, which is a very good reason not to change the name to me. There would have to be a reason, beyond any doubt in the majorities of minds that a change is needed, before we should mess with 20+ years of history and tradition. I do not see an overwhelming majority knocking down the door demanding a change. How many people have voted on this thread compared to the 2500 + members. How many people out there are interested in Corn Snakes that may have an opinion? 250,000 +, I have no real idea, but we are not talking about naming a new morph, we are talking about change the name of a morph that has existed for a very, very long time and that is no small thing. It was created in the 70’s and 80’s for goodness sakes. It does not really compare to the Mocha to Lavender name change. It is much bigger than that! Much bigger! Nobody hardly knew what a Mocha was until Lavenders swept the country.

The biggest reason for the suggested name change is the color of red in the name. The Bloodred pattern comes in a close second. Any morph that removes the red pigment is going to produce a corn that is not red. That should be expected. What was used to create this morph that so many people have a problem with? A Bloodred Corn Snake. A Bloodred X Caramel, or Bloodred X Lavender produced outcrosses, which when bred back together produced Carmel Bloodreds and Lavender Bloodreds. I am sure that Bloodreds were also produce in the same clutch. Perhaps not perfect Bloodreds, but from an outcross this is expected. So what is purposed is that the Lavender Bloodreds in the clutch be called Lavender Diffused Corns and the Bloodreds in the clutch remain Bloodreds, even though they are clutch mates and genetically very similar except for one is expressing a morph gene that removes the red pigment and the other one looks red.

When we bred the Lavender Diffused Corns to a Bloodred, then all of the hatchling will change back to Bloodreds het for Lavender or would it be Bloodreds het for Lavender Diffused Corns. This seems ridicules to me, much more than calling a snake by a name that has red in it that is not red. This sounds like we are out crossing when we are not.

Bloodreds were very much in need of out crossing for many reasons. The quality of the red color of the Bloodreds may not be what it was many years ago, but I am sure that is the goal of everybody who is breeding Bloodreds. The goal should be to produce Lavender Bloodreds that when bred to a Bloodreds produce very nice Bloodreds het for lavender or what is the point. It could be said, “Well to produce a Lavender with a Diffused pattern“. Is that what we or anybody is trying to do? I know I won’t be trying to produce a Lavender Blood that when bred to a Blood will only produce offspring with the Diffused pattern. That does not seems to not be the goal of anybody. They will want the Bloods het for Lavender to look like Bloods.

The fact that a mutant morph genes removes the red color and the name is added to a corn that is called a Bloodred Corn is not a problem for me at all, like Lavender Bloods. It is 100% expected when the mutant gene removes all of the red pigment. What is the mutant gene removing the red pigment from? A Bloodred Corn. If this Bloodred Corn can be recovered in future generations from this mutant, it is still a Bloodred Corn Snake. Nothing has changed at all.

Do the Bloodred Corns have a different pattern than regular Corns. It sure seem so. It also seems to be very hard to recover fully and recognize, from out crossed Bloodred Corns X “anything” in future generations, except for the belly pattern. It sure seems like there is more selective breeding involved than just a single simple genetic trait that produces a Bloodred Corn and its pattern. In either case, this pattern comes from Bloodred Corns and it is a Bloodred Pattern. It may be described as looking “Diffused” in appearance, but it still came from Bloodreds and is a Bloodred Pattern. This purposed name change of Diffused Corns will always and forever have to be explained by saying the pattern came from Bloodred Corns, so why change it in the first place.

Bloodred Corns are referred to as Bloods very often. I could live with Lavender Blood Corns, but most are in agreement that they will have a new name anyway. Why do we need to call them Diffused Lavender Corns when it is agreed that that name won’t last long anyway. A Lavender Bloodred Corn is a fine in between name. About the only morphs of corns that don’t receive a new name these days are the old ones like Anery A. I don’t see it changing back to the old ways and new catchy names are here to stay. I don’t see any good reason to change the name of Bloodred Corns and the morphs created with them when the new morphs will have a new name anyway. There is not an overwhelming outcry for a Bloodred Corn Snake name change.

ecreipeoj said:

A Bloodred X Caramel, or Bloodred X Lavender produced outcrosses, which when bred back together produced Carmel Bloodreds and Lavender Bloodreds. I am sure that Bloodreds were also produce in the same clutch. Perhaps not perfect Bloodreds, but from an outcross this is expected. So what is purposed is that the Lavender Bloodreds in the clutch be called Lavender Diffused Corns and the Bloodreds in the clutch remain Bloodreds, even though they are clutch mates and genetically very similar except for one is expressing a morph gene that removes the red pigment and the other one looks red.

Click to expand...

This isn't an accurate portrayal. What is proposed is that normal corns expressing the diffused pattern that are not red are NOT called bloodreds, because they aren't. It's like saying "we only want white amels to be called candycanes, instead of all amels."

When you're working with anerythristics, you have no idea how much of the "selective breeding for red" was lost in the process. Say you are breeding pewter to pewter (or diffused lav to diffused lav) in order to create "more patternless" snakes. What can happen is that the "infusion of red" (which does not appear to be directly linked to the pattern aspect) can be lost in the process.

You can cross pewter X diffused lavender and get snakes that are brown and nothing at all like a "bloodred." Sure they will have the plain belly. Sure, many will have "the pattern." And some of them might grow up to be outstanding "bloodred" cornsnakes.

But this is like:
1- crossing candycanes het anery to make snows.
2- breeding other snows into those lines.
3- breeding back out to an amelanistic and expecting to call all of the offspring "candycanes."

That scenario only applies if we agree that a not so red Bloodred is not a Bloodred.

Again, I pose this question:
How red does it have to be to be a Bloodred? And don't answer my question with another question. Please just give me the defining color.

Color versus Pattern.

Rich Z said:

Firstly, I assume you have read Dr. Bechtel's book Reptile and Amphibian Variants, so please review the section on Chromatophore Biology, please.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm eternally grateful to Dr Bechtel for identifying Motley.

I was thinking about this today, and not to put anyone down, but I think if he hadn't done so, I might instead be sitting here trying to convince people that Motley is a pattern trait. It would probably have been discovered eventually, and named something like "Coastal Hypo" (because of the places it was commonly found) and would have been considered a "color" trait.

I think this is not so hard to believe because every argument that has been put forth against "diffused" as a pattern trait is applicable to Motley.

• It's "too variable."
• It sometimes seems to have no effect beyond the belly.
• It can me imitated by other snakes that don't have the gene.
• There is no "proven" mechanism.
• It also appears to have some effect on coloration.

If any of these arguments are to be applied to the "diffused pattern trait" then they also must be applied to Motley.

Clint Boyer said:

That scenario only applies if we agree that a not so red Bloodred is not a Bloodred.

Again, I pose this question:
How red does it have to be to be a Bloodred? And don't answer my question with another question. Please just give me the defining color.

Click to expand...

As white as an amel has to be in order to be a candycane.

Then not so red. I see lots of color in the background of many Candy Canes.

Clint,

I was not dodging your question earlier when I inserted okeetee into the equation. I was attempting to answer it by reminding you that we already deal with that very issue in so many other morphs.

How red must an episkiastic snake be before it can be called a bloodred? I can't say ... but I'll know it when I see it. That's my answer.

Now, since I have answered your question for you, please look to these following questions with the same eye that you have directed toward the bloodred issue:

How silver must a snake's background be in order to be called a Miami phase?

How thick must an okeetee's border be before they are an okeetee?

What percentage of white can there be before an animal is no longer classified as a sunglow?

White percentage of white must there be before an animal may be classified as a candy cane?

What is the precise dividing line between reverse okeetee and regular amel?

Must an animal be from serpenco stock in order to be a Silver Queen? If not, how much like Rich's animals must a specimen look before that name could be used?



Clint, I am really not trying to be rude, because I have nothing but respect for you in so many ways. But it seems to me that we are wanting to single out the bloodred morph as something unique in the corn world, when it is merely another example of a single morph among many. How red must a bloodred be, before it can be classified as a "good" bloodred? Again, I have no idea, but I know it when I see it.

Is that really too foreign a concept in the determination of what makes a cornsnake fall into one category or another? How many threads have you seen posted by new people, who have just gotten their new cornsnake from the petstore. It's an amel, and they post the picture asking the inevitable question:

"Is my corn a reverse okeetee?"

Various people will respond, and there may be four different answers about the same snap shot: "Yes, no, maybe, I think it's a hybrid!" Does the fact that people disagree as to what constitutes a reverse okeetee, or that so many have a difficult time trying to definitively describe the morph mean that there is no distinction to be recognized?

I don't think so.

Clint Boyer said:

Then not so red. I see lots of color in the background of many Candy Canes.

Click to expand...

True. A lot of it depends on the breeder. Some hold themselves to much higher standards than others. I think the first time I really saw that in action was when I saw Walter Smith's amazing candycanes at his booth in Daytona.

Drizzt80 said:

I just don't agree with the "I've always used bloodred and understands what it means myself so I'm going to continue to use it." argument. D80

Click to expand...

I don't think that is anyones REAL arguement here. So are you OK with the "I like diffuse better and I understand what it means so I am going to start using it" arguement? The arguement for it is really no more trivial than the one against it. I think what the real point is that, yes, some people are ignorant as to what the "bloodred" pattern is, yes, some people capitalize on that and rip people off, yes, is does take some explaining to new ones to get them to understand what a butter(or whatever) bloodred is.
However, there will still be people (in fact MORE) that are ignorant as to what a diffuse corn is, others will still capitalize on it and rip people off, and it will still take some time to describe what a butter diffuse is.
Its is a lot of trouble to really get nowhere. Its not like we will stick a new name on and all the newbies will suddenly be blessed with more understanding. Yes it may save us one sentance when describing to a new person what bloodred is. But it will cost us many more "sentances" when we all have to answer questions like "Why does my diffuse corn look like the bloodred on page 969", or now we will have to "correct" people when they sell their "bloodreds" from a Pewter X Bloodred pairing. And don't forget the many many posts we will get asking "What is the difference between a diffuse and a bloodred".

I have no arguement that there is a difference between the pattern mutant and the color. But Serp, the one arguement you left out in your bulleted list is:

• It is too much trouble to go through with not enough advantages in return. A new name would create just as much confusion as keeping the old one.

One thing is for sure though, if the majority disagrees with that and everyone goes with a name change, it should be done soon before all the up and coming "bloodred/diffuse" morphs come on line.